4 ms·

The idea is life would spread so it would be in multiple places after the spread started. So "why some other place" is wrong because it should be "places", plur

The idea is life would spread so it would be in multiple places after the spread started. So "why some other place" is wrong because it should be "places", plural, in which case statistics starts leaning strongly your way. (FTR I personally disfavour pasnspermia theory, I'm just addressing your argument's possible shortcoming).

zokier 4y ago
But it needed to start somewhere. So panspermia needs some explanation why some other place than earth is more likely place for initial abiogenesis, and so far I have not encountered any such explanations
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  > why some other place than earth again, "places" not "place". There may be billion other places so some will be more likely and some less so, by happenstance. And if it miraculously started in just one place and can spread, there you go. They don't even have to be better, they can be just as good/bad, but that increases your chances by a billion because there are so many of them. One place just has to get lucky, that's all. Again, I don't feel panspermia offers much, but there's the argument.
  - xeyownt 4y ago
    Yes, and also panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all. How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion. Een if it was transported, it doesn't mean that life couldn't have appeared on its own on earth alone. Panspermia would be interesting if, for instance, we could show that Earth lacks an essential property for life to appear. But there is nothing in that direction. Panspermia raises more questions than it answers (where did life appear, when, is it everywhere...).
    - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
      > panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all > How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion Then just why are you even commenting on a panspermia thread. > Panspermia raises more questions than it answers agreed

zokier 4y ago

But it needed to start somewhere. So panspermia needs some explanation why some other place than earth is more likely place for initial abiogenesis, and so far I have not encountered any such explanations

_a_a_a_ 4y ago
> why some other place than earth again, "places" not "place". There may be billion other places so some will be more likely and some less so, by happenstance. And if it miraculously started in just one place and can spread, there you go. They don't even have to be better, they can be just as good/bad, but that increases your chances by a billion because there are so many of them. One place just has to get lucky, that's all. Again, I don't feel panspermia offers much, but there's the argument.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  Yes, and also panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all. How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion. Een if it was transported, it doesn't mean that life couldn't have appeared on its own on earth alone. Panspermia would be interesting if, for instance, we could show that Earth lacks an essential property for life to appear. But there is nothing in that direction. Panspermia raises more questions than it answers (where did life appear, when, is it everywhere...).
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    > panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all > How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion Then just why are you even commenting on a panspermia thread. > Panspermia raises more questions than it answers agreed